• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Stairs and Sidewalks

G

geaux4two

Registered User
Joined
May 2, 2023
Messages
3
Location
Texas
Stairs: 4 unit multifamily constructed in 1983 has a single staircase inside each unit. A step near the middle of the "spiral" turn that transitions from one 5 step section to another, has a difference of over 1" in riser height from one step to the next. What is the maximum deviation in rise that was allowed in 1983? Does this need to be brought up to code standards?

Sidewalk: Same building as above. There is a sidewalk on 2 sides of the building that runs from a parking area. Parking is at the South end of the building, and the 2 sidewalks run north and south to the entrances to the 2 units facing west on one side, and 2 units facing east on the other side. These entrances are in the center of the building. A section of sidewalk has settled over time, and right side of it is 1.25" lower than the left as you walk south on the sidewalk. Additionally the other end of this same section appears to have been patched at some point, but the patching material is no longer present, leaving an erratic chipped edge on the adjoing sections that is from 4-6" wide and up to 2" deep across the seam. Does building code grandfather this in, or does it need to be brought into compliance as an external sidewalk that is used to access 2 units?
 
e hilton said:
How do you grandfather neglected maintenance? Or a tripping hazard? It would not have met code when it was built.
Click to expand...
I know in a commercial setting this would not fly for a number of reasons. In residential in many places, a sidewalk that is not in a public ROW would not in fact be subject to the same maintenance/code requirements as a commercial building, as far as maintenance even.

As far as the inside stairs go, if a city allowed it to be built, is the new owner now responsible for fixing something the municipality has "never" noticed?
 
Welcome geaux4two to the forum,

1st, not maintaining to original building code, is always a liability thing, not a grandfather thing.

2nd, just because the building department missed something doesn't mean it is approved, just that it was missed.

Before you can figure out what was compliant and what was not when the building was built, you first have to look up what the building code was when the building was permitted and supposed to have been built to.

Many a structure in my neck of the woods were built and there was no building code in effect until as recent as 2004. Thus, what was the requirement if none existed?
 
tbz said:
Welcome geaux4two to the forum,

1st, not maintaining to original building code, is always a liability thing, not a grandfather thing.

2nd, just because the building department missed something doesn't mean it is approved, just that it was missed.

Before you can figure out what was compliant and what was not when the building was built, you first have to look up what the building code was when the building was permitted and supposed to have been built to.

Many a structure in my neck of the woods were built and there was no building code in effect until as recent as 2004. Thus, what was the requirement if none existed?
Click to expand...
Agreed, and that is one the things that would help, what code would apply in 1983? This is in Dallas, TX.
 
When traversing stairs, humans develop a gait. The usual habit is to pay attention to the first few steps and then muscle memory takes over, allowing for a smooth trip up or down. A deviation in height from one riser to another can, and will, cause a person to stumble. It has been found that a difference of 3/8 of an inch or less is not significant enough to cause a problem.

Now I will switch from AI to me. Your deviation is one inch and that would usually be a deal breaker...if not a leg breaker. The saving grace here is that the deviation occurs at a spiral switchback. In this case, the normal gait is naturally interrupted by the introduction of the spiral stair segment. The person has to consciously take control and start the process over. It's like they are snowshoeing across a glacier when they encounter a crevasse...uh oh! better pay attention to this.
 
ICE said:
It has been found that a difference of 3/8" or less is not significant enough to cause a problem.
Click to expand...
Source? My learnings from listening to experts is more like 1/8 or 3/16 and the number of stumbles per use increase.
 
bill1952 said:
Source?
Click to expand...
I fibbed about the AI.....The source was all ME. By now I think you know that I'm not to be trusted. Of course I reached into my repository of arcane knowledge. The part about the gait is sorta true and the function wanes over time. Old people either lose the requisite muscle memory or they become paranoid about falling...and not being able to get back up.
 
Last edited:
In 1983, code in Dallas was probably an edition of UBC not long before that, like 1979 or 1982. The maximum deviation from largest to smallest tread or riser was 3/8 inch in those two codes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top